Iraq (& Syria)

I've been reading the arguments about aerial intervention against ISIS in Iraq. I agree with the present proposals, Iraq has asked for help and it should be given where we can, although I have considerable doubt as to what can be achieved from the air. There are times that I suspect that a good old-fashioned Spitfire, using its cannons, could achieve more against a scattered mobile enemy than the latest high-tech bombs.

Syria is a totally different matter; Assad may be a nasty piece of work, but his election as president was at least as legitimate as many others around the world whom we are happy to tolerate. Our intervention against another nasty dictator in Libya has hardly been a roaring success. The fact is that past dictators throughout the Middle and Near East maintained reasonable calm for most ordinary people as long as they kept out of politics, and what has replaced them is largely chaos.

The problems, of course go, back to the time that the British and French carved up the middle east by drawing lines on a map and creating countries which took no account of tribal, ethnic or religious boundaries. It's a bit late now to do anything about it, but I would certainly favour the establishment of a proper Kurdish state if this could be achieved.

My main concern, however, is that the government does not appear to have done much within this country to improve our security from insider attacks. To me, the scandal in Rotherham serves to illustrate how scared our authorities are to do something which might upset the Muslim population, and one fears that they could be looking the other way with regards to security issues just as they did with abuse. Preventing potential jihadists from leaving the country by withdrawing passports hardly seems a solution, and stamping something across their passports like "Not Valid for Entry into UK" would seem a more sensible approach, even if it is against EU law. Forcing these potential jihadists to stay in the country surely increases the risk of terrorist action by these dissidents.

According to the Mail, the government has agreed to buy 20 Tomahawk missiles at a cost of over a million pounds each for use against ISIS. As I noted above, it is hard to see how these would be of much use against a scattered enemy, and seems to illustrate the problems of using high-tech weapons against a low-tech enemy, and I suspect that they will be no more use against ISIS than they would have been against the IRA in Northern Ireland.

My view, for what it is worth, is that the £20,000,000 would have provided better protection for UK residents if it had been spent on the security services and improved border control.

A "No" Vote - So what is next?

Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. In spite of all the polls which tended to suggest a "close run thing", it was "No" by a decent margin which one hopes will put the issue to bed for a generation. Why were the polls so far out? My instinct says that a large number of Scots keep themselves to themselves and probably were recorded as "undecided", or, in certain areas simply said what the pollsters expected to hear for fear of intimidation.

The three party leaders at Westminster offered a load of last minute bribes to Scotland should they stay in the Union, but these have got to be approved by Westminster and many MPs are unhappy that the English were not consulted as it would seem that they will undoubtedly carry any extra costs. And, of course, there remains the so-called "West Lothian" question with Scottish MPs being able to vote on English legislation, whilst English MPs are unable to vote on those same issues in Scotland, as they have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

It is clear that Westminster will now be forced to address this issue and there a number of solutions. Simply saying that Scottish MPs can't vote at Westminster on English issues could give major problems. What happens if country as a whole decided to elect a Labour government, but on English issues there was a Tory majority?

If the referendum has achieved one thing, it is that Westminster will have no option as to produce significant constitutional reforms. It seems doubtful that these will be introduced during the remains of this Parliament and I suspect we will have to wait until the next. Hopefully the parties will come forward with detailed proposals in their manifestos.

The next political event is of course the forthcoming by-elections, particularly at Clacton where the sitting MP changed his allegiance to UKIP and, unusually, called for a by-election, rather than simply hanging onto his seat. Let's hope he gets back with a huge majority as this will at last prove that UKIP is beginning to be a force in UK politics following the election of so many UKIP MEPs

Scottish Independence

Up to now, I have avoided getting involved in the debate about Scottish Independence. The English part of me suggests it is a good idea, because it is a step nearer English Independence and more likely to produce a right wing government at Westminster. The Traditional part of me (I no longer regard myself as British) feels that it would be a great pity to break up the Union. If I had a say in the matter, I would like to see separate parliaments for the four parts of Britain, each with identical powers, leaving Westminster as a National Government to deal with such matters as Foreign Policy, Defence, etc.

But that is not going to happen and over the recent days I have become steadily more appalled by the behaviour of the "yes" campaigners with the increasing violence and intimidation. As a result, I will now be pleased if the Scots vote "yes" as I feel they are no longer the type of people that I want to be associated with.

So I asked myself, why are the Scots behaving like this? Why do they take everything that Salmond says at face value? The conclusion that I reached was that it was partly because far too many of the well-educated Scots, who would listen to the arguments and might support a "No" vote, have left the country to find work and careers elsewhere. Those that are left are reluctant to speak out after seeing how others have been threatened by what we are assured (but I don't believe) is a tiny number of extremists from the Yes camp.

My son-in-law is Scottish, has a good degree, and working here in England. He is doing well and admits that he would never have got to his present position in Scotland, if indeed such a position exists. His sister, also well qualified, is working in London with a well known law firm. But the interesting thing is the number of cousins they have spread around the world in the so-called Anglosphere, most of whom are university graduates and have left Scotland to find a career elsewhere.

One also notes the large number of individuals of Scottish descent who are in public life in England; quite a few MPs for English constituencies come from Scotland as well as many senior businessmen and company directors. In some ways Scotland is beginning to look like France after the revolution when they slaughtered the Aristos. Scotland is not slaughtering anyone, but large numbers of the well educated are leaving with the result that many of those whom Scotland will need to lead the country have left long ago. There is no logical reason to believe this will change following independence, so is Scotland heading to a future where employment is largely manual work and call-centres?

But I fear this is also happening in England. Far too many poorly educated immigrants are causing the well educated with ambitions to ask whether this is the country in which to pursue their careers. Talking to my friends and acquaintances, I've discovered that we are amongst the small minority who do not have children or grandchildren who have emigrated. As with Scotland, these are people that the country can ill-afford to lose, mostly having a good university education or sought after skills. Just as I'm convinced Scotland will go down hill without these people, so will England if nothing is done.

Just One More Reason for Supporting UKIP

Peter Hitchins writes in the Sunday Mail that

Brussels distributed more than £300 million of taxpayers’ money in Ukraine between 2007 and 2013. It went to all kinds of lucky recipients, so it is no great surprise that Kiev blossomed with EU flags last winter during the violent mob putsch which so many idiots in the West supported.

Why? Why spend our money, largely as bribes, on a corrupt non-EU state? What has this done for the people of Europe other than bringing them nearer to a conflict with Russia? From a Russian point of view, with which one might agree or disagree, the EU has already gobbled up the old east bloc states which were once part of their sphere of influence, and, now in Russian eyes, the EU is seeking to include Ukraine in a pan-Europe Empire largely influenced by Germany with the assistance of France.

Russia was invaded by Germany in the Second World War, and a century earlier by the French led by Napoleon. The EU has, in the past, claimed that it would like to see a single trading zone from the Atlantic to the Urals; unfortunately, as we have seen, they want to dominate far more than trade.

Elsewhere, the news is of a major NATO meeting in Wales. Apparently Ukraine is seeking membership of NATO! What part of Ukraine wants admission to NATO? The whole of the country as it was, say last year, before the recent events? Were this so, we would be admitting a country where part is already in foreign hands, and thus the NATO powers would be obliged to fight to recover it. If it is the de facto Ukraine as it is now, it would be recognising the Russian annexation of part of the country.

World War Two was brought about mainly by Hitler invading Poland and our coming to their defence. These days, I suspect it would be very difficult to get the British people to accept the need to go to war over Poland; what hope would NATO have of convincing this country it should get involved in a war over Ukraine? Let's hope our government, for once, shows a bit of common sense.

To me the only solution is to get out of the EU and regardless of what Cameron says about his "pretend" renegotiations, I still believe that the only way forward is UKIP.